Reliability Engineering and System Safety 91 (2006) 839848 www.elsevier.

com/locate/ress

A combined goal programmingAHP approach to maintenance selection problem

Massimo Bertolini a,*, Maurizio Bevilacqua b
a

` Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale, Universita degli Studi di Parma, Viale delle Scienze, 181/A, 43100 Parma, Italy b ` Dipartimento di Ingegneria delle Costruzioni Meccaniche, Nucleari, Aeronautiche e di Metallurgia, sede di Forl, ` ` Universita degli Studi di Bologna, Via Fontanelle 40, 47100 Forl, Italy Received 14 October 2004; accepted 18 August 2005 Available online 10 October 2005

Abstract This paper presents a Lexicographic Goal Programming (LGP) approach to dene the best strategies for the maintenance of critical centrifugal pumps in an oil renery. For each pump failure mode, the model allows to take into account the maintenance policy burden in terms of inspection or repair and in terms of the manpower involved, linking them to efciency-risk aspects quantied as in FMECA methodology through the use of the classic parameters occurrence (O), severity (S) and detectability (D), evaluated through an adequate application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique. An extended presentation of the data and results of the case analysed is proposed in order to show the characteristics and performance of this approach. q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Maintenance strategy selection; Goal programming; Analytic hierarchy process

1. Introduction Proper maintenance of plant equipment can signicantly reduce the overall operating cost, while boosting the productivity of the plant. Management personnel often consider plant maintenance an expense, yet a more positive approach is to view maintenance work as a prot centre. In consideration of this new perspective, the requirements for maintenance management have change drastically from the old concept of x-it-when-broken to a more complex approach, which entails adopting a maintenance strategy for a more integrated approach and alignment. Furthermore, the high level of complexity of todays industrial plans requires an elevated level of availability and reliability of such systems. The development of new technologies and managerial practices means that maintenance staff must be endowed with growing technical and managerial skills [1]. The deterioration and failure of systems might incur high costs, due to production losses and delays, unplanned

* Corresponding author. Tel.: C39 0521 905861; fax: C39 0521 905705. E-mail address: massimo.bertolini@unipr.it (M. Bertolini).

0951-8320/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2005.08.006

intervention on the system and safety hazards. For that reason, an appropriate maintenance policy strategy is necessary in order to replace the deteriorated system before failure [2]. The managers must select the best maintenance policy for each piece of equipment or system out of a set of possible alternatives. In particular, the development of maintenance strategies (i.e. a suitable combine between corrective, preventive and predictive maintenance policies) must take into account that resources are limited and, as a result, that maintenance activities should be imperfect [3]. Several methods have been proposed in the literature for planning maintenance activities of industrial plants. Among these, the Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM) approach [4] offers a systematic and efcient Decision Support System (DSS) tool to the optimisation of plant and equipment maintenance. In particular, RCM approach is designed to minimise maintenance costs by balancing the costs of different maintenance strategy taking into account the loss of potential life [5]. Recent DSS study [6] highlights the benets of an Integrated Multi Criteria Decision Making approach when tackling Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Safety (RAMS) problems in complex process plants like a nuclear power plant, from a technical specication and maintenance point of view. The use of the proposed methodology that balances RAMS and costs (RAMSCC) allows to

840

M. Bertolini, M. Bevilacqua / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 91 (2006) 839848

simultaneously satisfy the relevant criteria (i.e. reliability, availability, maintainability, safety, costs, human resources) with respect of the constraints conditions. Another interesting DSS maintenance analysis is described in [7]. Based on the integration of operational and maintenance linked aspects in chemical process plants, the authors develop a framework that allows to identify process and availability requirements at the design stage. This allow to clearly dening the optimal trade off between investment and operational cost from an availability point of view. The study of Cowing et al. [8] analyses the long-term evolution of trade off between safety and productivity taking into account the inuence of interruption of operation due to scheduled and on demand maintenance, providing a model that allows to optimally manage the different operation strategies in order to maximise long-term performance. This paper represents a new contribution in the eld of Decision Support System (DSS) tool for maintenance policies selection problem. In particular, a Goal Programming approach is proposed to minimise maintenance costs, solving a maintenance strategy selection problem concerning the various centrifugal pumps present in an oil renery plant. The use of Goal Programming allows considering multiple criteria to measure performance, multi object/goals and constraints. The use of the pre-emptive goals technique especially allows the analyst to assign different priorities to the goals considered, looking for a solution that rst of all meets the most important of these priorities. 2. Maintenance strategy selection problem Estimating the best set of maintenance policies for the different failure modes is a hard and complex task. This selection requires the knowledge of various factors such as safety aspects, environmental problems, costs and budget constraints, manpower utilization, MTBF and MTTR for each piece of equipment, etc. The management of the large number of tangible and intangible attributes that must be taken into account represents the main complexity of the problem. In spite of the great importance of the problem, there are not many studies that deal with the analysis and development of maintenance policy selection. Some Decision Support System (DSS) approaches are proposed in literature as an aid to the solution of this problem. As mentioned above, ReliabilityCentred Maintenance (RCM) [4] is one of the best known and most used devices to preserve the operational efciency of production tools. RCM operates by balancing the high corrective maintenance costs with the cost of programmed (preventive or predictive) policies, taking into account the potential shortening of the useful life of the item considered. Its principles are widely described in [911] and its application ranges from military, nuclear power plants and electric power generation, to many other industrial sectors. Rausand [4] describes the guidelines for a practical application of RCM concepts identifying four different consequences of a failure, i.e. safety of personnel, environmental impact, production availability and cost of material loss, dening four levels of

criticality for each of the above classes of consequences. Several RCM concepts applications can be found in literature: Deshpande and Modak describe a systematic RCM application to a steel melting shop of a medium-scale industry [12], taking also into account safety consideration to develop consistent strategies to assess the maintenance problems in modern manufacturing industry [13] and analysing the problems that arise in applying RCM technique in western and eastern rms [14]. Carratero et al. [15] describe the application of RCM to large system like a railway network, stressing that an interdisciplinary approach can provide optimal results for an efcient and effective maintenance implementation. To improve RCM implementations, scheduling maintenance activities, Vatn [16] suggested combining decision theory models and inuencing diagrams. The framework proposed by the author allows to perform quantitative analyses of maintenance strategy incorporate preferences and value tradeoffs explicitly in the analyses. Another discussion on optimization models applied to maintenance decision making can be found in [17], where the authors discuss the application of operational and strategic decision support systems to maintenance, stressing the necessity of new information technology tool to take advantage of the potential of optimization models. Waeyenbergh and Pintelon [18] developed and implemented a 7-step modular framework to provide a support when deciding which maintenance policy to use. This framework was developed on the basis of the well-known maintenance concepts present in literature (i.e. RCM, TPM and BCM [19]). Others Multi Criteria Decision (MCD) approaches have been suggested in the recent years. In particular, Almeida and Bohoris [20] consider the application of decision-making theory to maintenance paying special attention to the multiattribute utility theory. Triantaphyllou et al. [21] suggest the use of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) considering only four maintenance criteria: cost, reparability, reliability and availability. Bevilacqua and Braglia [22] presented an application of the AHP technique for maintenance strategy selection in an Italian oil renery processing plant, combining many features which are important in the selection of the maintenance policy: economic factors, applicability and costs, safety, etc. In order to make the cost control more effective, an integrated AHP and GP approach is suggested in this paper: the use of a combined model allows to investigate the maintenance selection problem in detail, taking into account the resource burden and providing the analyst with a tool to assess the priority level of the different maintenance alternatives. 3. Goal programming technique Goal programming is a well-known modication and extension of linear programming, developed in the early 1960s owing to the study of Charnes and Cooper [23]. Linear programming deals with only one single objective to be minimized or maximized, and subject to some constraint; it,

M. Bertolini, M. Bevilacqua / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 91 (2006) 839848

841

therefore, has limitations in solving a problem with multiple objectives. Goal programming, instead, can be used as an effective approach to handle a decision concerning multiple and conicting goals. Also, the objective function of a goalprogramming model may consist in non-homogeneous units of measure. The goal-programming approach is extensively applied in decision analysis in operations research, such as production planning, nancial decisions [24], marketing decisions, corporate planning, academic planning, and decision in government [25,26]. In particular, it has been successfully used to solve several Multi Criteria Decision (MCD) problems, such as the design of a quality control procedure in service organizations [27]; the selection of the optimal set of service quality control instruments [28]; regarding information system selection [29] and the identication and development in the mathematical model for information system project selection in health service institutions; and, nally, to help the facility planning authorities to formulate viable location strategies in the volatile and complex global decision environment [30]. The different goal programming models available to assess MCD problems include the non-linear and linear GP with Archimedean weights (i.e. weighted GP), the Interactive Weighted Tchebycheff Procedure (IWT), the MINMAX (Chebyshev) GP, the Reference Point Method (RPM), the Compromise Programming (CP), and the Lexicographic Linear GP. Lexicographic goal programming is actually one of the most signicant devices in tackling MCD problems: the different goals can be ranked according to different priority levels that reect the target allocated to them by the decision maker. The lexicographic approach denes different priority levels Pj for the goals of the analysis. The different priority levels reect the hierarchical relationship between the targets in the objective function where they are arranged in order of decreasing priority (P1OP2O/OPm). In order to identify the solution to the problem, the highest priority goals and constraints are considered rst; if more than one solution is found in the rst step, another goal programming problem is formulated which takes into account the second priority level targets. The procedure is repeated until a unique solution is found, gradually considering decreasing priority levels. The lexicographic optimisation can then avoid the estimate of the different deviation weights, but the results of the analysis may be biased by the analysts personal opinion [31]. In this paper, the LGP model is applied dening a binary structural variable (zero-one programming), and the objective function reported in Eq. (1) shows that the goal of the problem consists in the minimization of the unwanted deviations from the target. In Eq. (1), dK and dC, respectively, represent the negative j j and positive deviation from the value, either desired or constrained, of the jth objective.

Taking into account m objectives we have: min Z Z

m X jZ1

Pj djK; dC j

(1)

The deviations are mutually exclusive and this lead to the condition expressed in Eq. (2): djKdC Z 0 j (2)

The Pj factors reect the problem hierarchy: P1 represent the highest level, P2 the second priority level, and so on. The objective function is subject to m constraint equations, as shown in Eq. (3) " # n X aji xi C djKKdC Z Bj ; with j Z 1; 2; .; m (3) j
iZ1

where Bj represents the objective target of the jth resource; aji is the usage of jth resource of every possible alternative ith decision.

4. The AHP-GP model for maintenance policy selection The combined AHP-GP model embodies AHP results in the GP model. In particular, in the model described here the AHP analysis provides the priority vector of the possible maintenance policies (corrective, preventive and predictive) for each failure type revealed. The use of AHP allows to dene a threelevel hierarchical structure: the top level represents the goal of the analysis (in this case the maintenance policy denition), the second level is relative to the relevant criteria used (occurrence, severity and detectability), the third one denes the possible alternatives. AHP is a decision-making procedure originally developed by Saaty in the 1970s and described in Saaty [32]. Some criticism has been expressed by decision analysts on the use of AHP for multi criteria decision making, mainly based on the lack of a strong normative foundation and on a possible ambiguity of the questions the decisions maker must answer (see, for example, [33,34]). The replies of Saaty and Vargas to those critics can be found, as en example, in references [3538]. Recently, Bana and Vansnick [39] motivate the new critic on AHP technique based on the missing respect of a measurement condition. Although several researches express discordant opinion on the use of AHP, the technique is still widely used in practice. Once the AHP qualitative structure had been dened, the data for the pairwise comparison necessary to obtain the maintenance policy scores were collected by interviewing the oil renery maintenance and production management staff. The AHP analysis outcomes used to develop the AHP-GP model are the global priority (SCOREAHP,i) of the different ith alternatives (the possible maintenance policies for every failure type), the local priority SCOREk,i of the ith alternative with

842

M. Bertolini, M. Bevilacqua / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 91 (2006) 839848

respect to each criterion, and the weights (wk) of the kth criteria (occurrence, severity and detectability) present at the second level of the hierarchical structure developed. The nal outcome is a vector, normalised to the unity, that allows to identify the better alternative with respect to the target. AHP technique also allows the analyst to evaluate the correctness and the consistency of the given pairwise comparisons, by means of an inconsistency ratio (IR) [32]. The judgments can be considered acceptable if and only if IR%0.1. The objective function can thus be formulated as in Eq. (4): X X K min Z Z Pk wk dk ; wk dC C Pj djK; dC (4) lk j
k j

1. 2. 3. 4.

cost minimization; manpower usage minimization; AHP score maximization; local score maximization for each criterion (occurrence, severity and detectability).

Once the cost and manpower usage targets have been dened, it is possible to formulate the complete AHP-GP model reported in Eq. (5) (for a complete list of notation used in this paper, the reader may refer to the Appendix A):
K min Z Z P1 dC C P2 dC C P3 dK C MT SCORE; HP C P4 wO dO A

The goal is the minimization of the unwanted deviations, also by taking into account the AHP scores. The CCORR xCORR C CPREV xPREV C CCOND xCOND C dKKdC Z TC C C

C wS dK C wD dK S D subject to

MTCORR xCORR C MTPREV xPREV C MTCOND xCOND C dK KdC Z TMT MT MT

C SCOREAHP;CORR xCORR C SCOREAHP;PREV xPREV C SCOREAHP;COND xCOND C dK SCORE;AHP KdSCORE;AHP Z 1

(5)

SCOREO;CORR xCORR C SCOREO;PREV xPREV C SCOREO;COND xCOND C dKKdC Z TO;SCORE O O SCORES;CORR xCORR C SCORES;PREV xPREV C SCORES;COND xCOND C dKKdC Z TS;SCORE S S SCORED;CORR xCORR C SCORED;PREV xPREV C SCORED;COND xCOND C dKKdC Z TD;SCORE D D

lexicographic structure of the goal programming model considers the (wk) as sub-weights since they are weighted through the priority scores Pk. The problem solution, obtained using LINDO software, allows the analyst to point out the relative importance of the different maintenance policies taking however into account the limitation of the resources available. The maintenance policy denition was obtained through AHP (see Fig. 1) on the basis of the classical FMECA parameters occurrence, severity and detectability dening the criterias respective weights wO, wS, wD. The structural binary variables xCORR, xPREV, xCOND represent corrective, preventive and predictive maintenance policies, and the objectives, listed as decreasing priority values, have been identied as:

In the model above, the two rst constraint equations are relative to the maintenance cost and manpower usage targets, more specically: (i) CCORR, C PREV , C COND and MT CORR , MTPREV , MTCOND represent the cost and maintenance time for the corrective, preventive and predictive policies; (ii) TC and TMT indicate the availability of the maintenance resources; (iii) dK; dC and dK ; dC dene the negative and positive MT C MT C deviations for the maintenance cost and the maintenance time, respectively. The above equations are linked to the further model objectives AHP score maximization and local score maximization: SCOREAHP,i is the score obtained by the ith maintenance policy alternatives through AHP analysis, and SCOREk,i is the local score of the ith alternative with respect to the kth criteria under examination (occurrence, severity and detectability). The Tk,SCORE values represent the targets dened for the constraint equations linked to the local score maximization score. The numerical values of the Tk,SCORE, have been chosen, according to Badri [28], as the sum of the two highest SCOREk,i values. The deviations from the target are referred to as dK; dC for k k each criterion. The objective function aims at minimizing the sum of the deviations associated to each specied goal, taking into account only the unwanted deviations.

Fig. 1. AHP hierarchy for maintenance policy selection.

M. Bertolini, M. Bevilacqua / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 91 (2006) 839848 Table 1 Pump operating parameters Item Pu1 Pu2 Pu3 Pu4 Pu5 Pu6 Pu7 Pu8 Pu9 Pu10 Production plant Topping Topping Topping Topping Topping Topping Topping Topping Unining Unining Fluid Crude oil Resin Bitumen Gas oil Gas oil Gas oil Gas oil Gasoline Hydrocarbon Hydrocarbon Fluid temperature (8C) 18 164 360 257 187 326 188 38 239 40 Flow rate (m3/h) 530 55 231 123 63 42 459 151 687 172 Head (m) 237 73 173 108 117 92 192 205 146 67 Density (kg/m3) 870 661 801 668 670 663 764 694 468 669 NPSH (m) 6 2 4 3.8 2.3 2 4.3 2.5 2.9 3.6

843

5. The case study The AHP-GP model described above has been applied to identify the optimal maintenance policy for a set of centrifugal pumps operating in the process and service plants of an Italian oil renery. The data necessary to the analysis were collected through specic queries to the oil renery Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS).
Table 2 Pump failure types Item Pu1 Pu2 Pu3 Failure Component Coupling Double seal Coupling Double seal Inlet gate Coupling Double seal Inlet gate Pump body Strain Flow meter Double seal Inlet pipe Pump body Double seal Servo valve Single seal Double seal Bearing Strain Double seal Strain Single seal Pump shaft Brass Pump body Double seal Brass Pump body Bearing Pump impeller Single seal Effect Vibration Damage Vibration Damage Fluid loss Vibration Damage Fluid loss Fissure Deterioration Deterioration Damage Breakdown Fissure Damage Malfunction Damage Damage Damage Blockage Damage Blockage Damage Flexure Wear Erosion Damage Wear Erosion Damage Damage Damage

Failure and maintenance data relative to a 10-year period were analysed, gathering information such as failed item, failure cause and effect, MTBF, MTTR, repair cost. The analysis allowed to highlight the 10 most critical pumps, which, in agreement with the oil renery maintenance management, were chosen to formed the set for the application of the AHP-GP model. Such pumps will be referred to in the following as Pu1, Pu2, Pu3, Pu4, Pu5, Pu6, Pu7, Pu8, Pu9,

Cause Misalignment Foreign body/normal operation Misalignment Foreign body/normal operation Breakdown Misalignment Foreign body/normal operation Breakdown Inhibited dilatation Foreign body/normal operation Foreign body/normal operation Foreign body/normal operation Aggressive agent/uncontrolled dilatation Inhibited dilatation Foreign body/normal operation Wear/normal operation Foreign body/normal operation Foreign body/normal operation Bad lubrication Foreign body/normal operation Foreign body/normal operation Foreign body/normal operation Foreign body/normal operation Thermal shock/bearing breakdown Bad lubrication/normal operation Foreign body/normal operation Foreign body/normal operation Bad lubrication/normal operation Foreign body/normal operation Bad lubrication Wrong assembly/foreign body Foreign body/normal operation

Pu4

Pu5

Pu6 Pu7

Pu8 Pu9

Pu10

844

M. Bertolini, M. Bevilacqua / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 91 (2006) 839848

Table 3 Possible predictive and preventive action for the failure type Failure type Coupling misalignment Seal damage Inlet gate breakdown Breakdown due to pump body ssure4 Strain blockage Preventive maintenance action Alignment control1 Visual inspection2 Not possible Not possible Functionality control5 Predictive maintenance action Not possible Flux uid analysis Strain analysis3 Integrity control with dye penetrant Functionality control6 Notes Through stroboscope For single seals 3 Through strain gage and pipe tracing for a proper heating sequence 4 Failure due to an inlet gate strain
2 1

Flow meter wrong measurement Pipeline breakdown8

Functionality control7 Not possible

Not possible Thickness control9

Through the use of strains with visual inspection capability; 6Through a differential-pressure gage with alert to control the strain pressure drop 7 Periodic control of instrument tuning and uid passing with a ow indicator 8 Failure due to aggressive agent erosion and uncontrolled strain; 9Through ultrasonic thickness gage

Servo valve breakdown

Bearing breakdown

Periodic substitution at a xed number of operating cycles Not possible

Not possible

Shaft exure Brass wear Brass high vibration level Pump body erosion

Not possible Substitution at a x operating period Periodic inspection of the lubrication system Protective elements (liner) insertion to limit pump body erosion12 Not possible

Temperature and lubricating oil analysis through temperature probe and oil monitoring systems, vibration analysis through accelerometer10 Vibration and noisiness analysis and electric motor absorption control11 Not possible Not possible Not possible

10

Assess and report on temperature, oil condition, speed, bearing condition, shaft alignment, noise, vibration and cavitation 11 An increase in electric motor absorption can indicate the presence of pump cavitation

12

Generally performed during plant turnaround

Impeller damage13,14

Vibration analysis through accelerometer14

13

14

Failure due to a bad strain operation; Phenomenon due to wrong assembly

Pu10; their relevant operating parameters are reported in Table 1 and the failure type (classied for item, effect and cause) in Table 2. The aim of the analysis is to identify the optimal maintenance policy for each failure type, taking into account the feasibility of the different alternatives. Table 3 reports a brief description of the possible predictive and preventive action for the critical items identied per failure type. The pairwise comparison data needed to assess the priority of the three criteria used (i.e. occurrence, severity and detectability) were collected by interviewing the maintenance engineering technical and management staff of API oil renery. The resulting priority vector (wk) is shown in Table 4. The overall inconsistency ratio (IR) results to be 0.044 (%0.1), thus ensuring the consistency of the pairwise comparison. Also the partial IR values, not reported for brevity, are all lower than 0.1. The most relevant criterion appears to be severity, directly linked to safety and production aspects. Table 5 reports, as an example, the priority index for the three maintenance policies here considered relating to the failures single seal damage and blocked strain. To apply the AHP-GP model, maintenance time and cost data were collected by querying the oil renery CMMS.

The corrective maintenance cost, distinguished for the several failure types, was calculated as the mean of the data from the past 10 years, updating the values to the last period of operation. The maintenance cost comprises either item repair or substitution fee and the manpower expense, evaluated on the basis of the labour-hours needed. API oil renery outsourcers the management of the inspection policy to a third party rm; the maintenance
Table 4 Priority vector for criteria used Criteria Severity Occurrence Detectability Inconsistency ratio (IR)Z0.044. Table 5 Example of priority index for the three maintenance policies considered Failure type Corrective maintenance priority 0.085 0.126 Preventive maintenance priority 0.275 0.405 Predictive maintenance priority 0.640 0.469 Weight (wk) wS Z 0:724 wO Z 0:193 wD Z 0:083

Single seal damage Blocked strain

M. Bertolini, M. Bevilacqua / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 91 (2006) 839848 Table 6 The maintenance cost and time data Items Failure type Corrective cost Preventive cost Predictive cost Minutes for corrective maintenance 360 720 240 360 360 240 900 360 1080 240 360 360 60 1080 1440 360 360 720 1240 240 720 240 1080 1440 480 360 720 480 360 480 180 360 Minutes for preventive maintenance 252 168 252 252 168 630 252 756 168 252 252 42 756 1008 252 252 504 868 168 504 168 756 1008 336 252 504 336 252 336 126 252 Minutes for predictive maintenance 612 204 306 306 204 765 306 918 204 306 306 51 918 1224 306 306 612 1054 204 612 204 918 1224 408 306 612 408 306 408 153 306 TC TMT

845

Pu1 Pu2 Pu3

Pu4

Coupling Double seal Coupling Double seal Inlet gate Coupling Double seal Inlet gate Pump body Strain Flow meter Double seal Inlet pipe Pump Double seal Servo valve Single seal Double seal Bearing Strain Double seal Strain Single seal Pump shaft Brass Pump body Double seal Brass Pump body Bearing Pump impeller Single seal

Pu5

Pu6 Pu7

Pu8 Pu9

Pu10

Vibration Damage Vibration Damage Fluid loss Vibration Damage Fluid loss Fissure Deterioration Deterioration Damage Breakdown Fissure Damage Malfunction Damage Damage Damage Blockage Damage Blockage Damage Flexure Wear Erosion Damage Wear Erosion Damage Damage Damage

V1184 V1697 V514 V1453 V1552 V254 V8369 V548 V1585 V943 V289 V4716 V161 V903 V4079 V222 V431 V2200 V819 V325 V3398 V483 V6235 V1889 V454 V1424 V5931 V384 V231 V2924 V2856 V6479

V875 V504 V348 V762 V339 V298 V424 V1392 V391 V486 V3721 V407 V1020 V3631 V365 V304 V4053

V1141 V1093 V1112 V4769 V561 V1236 V1081 V2887 V418 V861 V2281 V496 V351 V742 V2077 V828 V3553 V973 V3471 V1735 V1942 V3857

1033 2840 1033 2840 1136 620 5939 1050 1446 774 413 3357 516 1446 2840 774 1033 2840 1420 774 2840 774 4131 1239 930 1213 4131 930 516 2840 2840 4131

1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 900 900 900 1200 900 1200 1200 1080 200 1200 1200 300 1200 900 1200 900 900 900 800 900 900 1200 900 1200

cost was then evaluated on the basis of a xed operating time item substitution or inspection outcomes (preventive policy), or on the basis of the real time analysis of the controlled items operating parameters (predictive policy). The values above were added to the manpower cost, estimated through the mean preventive and predictive inspection times. The estimate of the preventive and predictive maintenance times for the failure types considered for the observed pumps was carried out as in the following: for a given pump and for each cause of failure we have: MTCORR Z TFAILURE NFAILURE (6)

equal to the mean number of failures increased by one and the maintenance time was determined as a xed percentage aZ 70% of the corresponding corrective maintenance time, as shown in Eq. (7): MTPREV Z TPREV NPREV ; TPREV Z TFAILURE a; (7) NPREV Z NFAILURE C 1 For a predictive maintenance we suppose that: MTCOND Z TCOND NCOND ; TCOND Z TFAILURE b; (8) NCOND Z NFAILURE where b is higher than a (bZ85%) in consideration that the mean time for predictive maintenance is considered comprised between the corrective and preventive maintenance time values.

where MTCORR, TFAILURE, NFAILURE are the overall corrective maintenance time, the single item repair time and the expected number of failures of the item during the observation period. As far as preventive maintenance policy is considered, the number of programmed interventions was hypothesized as

846

M. Bertolini, M. Bevilacqua / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 91 (2006) 839848

The proposed evaluation method appears to be rather rough. However, in consideration of the kind and amount of data collected and the problem dimension, a more accurate statistical analysis (i.e. failure rate trend vs. item operating time or optimal programmed maintenance mathematical modelling) reveals itself as not viable. The maintenance cost and time data for the three different policies are summarized in Table 6, where TC and TMT are the budget and maintenance time availability, respectively. The model implementation also requires to dene the upper bound values of the resources involved in the maintenance task. These bounds have been xed to a level not higher than the mean values recorded during the operating periods preceding relevant revamping of the controlled plant item. In the case study here described such a period was always less than 5 years. The AHP-GP model described in the above was solved using LINDO software, nding out the optimal maintenance policy for every item failure type. The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 7.

The analysis of the results points out that in most cases the goals of the model are reached by choosing the predictive maintenance policy. For 21 failure types, the optimal maintenance is the predictive type, in 10 situations it is better to adopt a preventive maintenance policy, and in one case it is convenient to combine preventive and predictive policies. In no cases the model recommended the corrective policy. 5.1. Result discussion The AHP-GP model proposed highlights that in the situation studied predictive maintenance obtains the best compromise between resource usage and reduction of failure effects. This fact is non-surprising since this policy allows failure prediction, thus providing the maintenance manager with useful information to limit the negative failure aspects in terms of both safety and cost. The model, when applied to the situation analysed, never suggested the adoption of corrective maintenance policy. Such a policy is characterized by a low investment for the tools requested to perform the maintenance, but does not allow any kind of failure prevention, with possible critical consequences in cost and safety for both people and production plants, especially rms in the petrochemical industry. The model outcomes were submitted to the maintenance staff of the oil renery, whose management, on the basis of the model results, decided to introduce a more accurate inspection plan for the critical failures of the items analyzed, thus reducing the possibility of catastrophic failures and allowing the maintenance function to better schedule activities improving cost control and operational efciency. 6. Conclusions This paper proposes a goal programming approach to the selection of maintenance strategies for the centrifugal pumps of an oil renery plants. This approach can simultaneously handle the multiple and conicting goals characteristic of decision problems such as quality control system selection, facility location allocation problems, information system project evaluation, fund allocation. The combined AHP-GP model was applied in two subsequent stages: the rst part of the analysis provided the priority levels for the different maintenance policies with respect to the classical FMECA criteria (occurrence, severity and delectability), the second step, with the formulation of the Goal Programming model, has led to the identication of the best set of maintenance type for the equipment failure modes considered. The decision model proposed compares three alternative maintenance strategies (corrective, preventive and predictive), taking into account (i) budget and (ii) amount of hours of manpower labour constraints. The application of the GP technique combined with AHP methodology proved to be a exible tool to optimally allocate the resource to the different maintenance strategies, a feature that is particularly important in situations where the decision

Table 7 The results of the analysis Item Failure Component Pu1 Pu2 Pu3 Coupling Double seal Coupling Double seal Inlet gate Coupling Double seal Inlet gate Pump body Strain Flow meter Double seal Inlet pipe Pump Double seal Servo valve Single seal Double seal Bearing Strain Double seal Strain Single seal Pump shaft Brass Pump body Double seal Brass Pump body Bearing Pump impeller Single seal Effect Vibration Damage Vibration Damage Fluid loss Vibration Damage Fluid loss Fissure Deterioration Deterioration Damage Breakdown Fissure Damage Malfunction Damage Damage Damage Blockage Damage Blockage Damage Flexure Wear Erosion Damage Wear Erosion Damage Damage Damage Results Optimal maintenance mix Preventive Preventive Preventive Predictive Predictive Preventive Predictive Predictive Predictive Preventive Preventive Predictive Predictive Predictive Predictive Preventive PreventiveC Predictive Predictive Predictive Predictive Predictive Preventive Predictive Predictive Preventive Preventive Predictive Predictive Predictive Predictive Predictive Predictive

Pu4 Pu4

Pu5

Pu6 Pu7

Pu8 Pu9

Pu10

M. Bertolini, M. Bevilacqua / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 91 (2006) 839848

847

maker can choose between different objectives subject to several constraint conditions. The method here presented can provide a framework to guide future investigations. In particular, in future works other kinds of goals and/or constraints could be potentially considered and added to the original model proposed. Acknowledgements The authors are indebted to the Referee for their constructive comments which enabled the improvement of the quality of the present study. Appendix A. Notation used in the paper djK the negative deviation from the value desired or constrained, of the jth objective; djC the positive deviation from the value desired or constrained, of the jth objective; Pj factors reect the problem hierarchy (i.e. P1 represent the highest level, P2 the second priority level, and so on); Bj the objective target of the jth resource; aji the usage of jth resource of every possible alternative ith decision; xi the alternative ith decision (i.e. xCORR is the corrective maintenance policy); SCOREAHP,i the global priority of the different ith alternatives; SCOREk,i the local priority of the ith alternative with respect to each criterion; wk the weights of the kth criteria (i.e. wO is the weights of occurrence criteria); CCORR the cost for the corrective policy; CPREV the cost for the preventive policy; CCOND the cost for the predictive policy; MTCORR the maintenance time for the corrective policy; MTPREV the maintenance time for the preventive policy; MTCOND the maintenance time for the predictive policy; TC the availability of the maintenance budget resources; PMT the availability of the maintenance time resources; SCOREAHP,i the score obtained by the ith maintenance policy alternatives through AHP analysis (i.e. SCOREAHP,CORR is the score obtained by the corrective maintenance policy through AHP analysis); SCOREk,i the local score of the ith alternative with respect to the kth criteria under examination (i.e. SCOREO,CORR is the local score of occurrence alternative with respect to the corrective maintenance policy); Tk,SCORE the targets dened for the constraint equations linked to the local score maximization score (i.e. TO,SCORE is the targets dened for the occurrence); K C dk ; dk the deviations from the target for each criterion K C (i.e. dC ; dC are the negative and positive

MTCORR MTPREV MTCOND TFAILURE

NFAILURE

K C deviations for the maintenance cost, dMT ; dMT are the negative and positive deviations for the maintenance time); the overall corrective maintenance time; the overall preventive maintenance time; the overall predictive maintenance time; the single item repair time (TPREV is the item repair time in preventive policy and TCOND is the item repair time in predictive policy); the expected number of failures of the item during the observation period (NPREV is the number of programmed interventions in preventive maintenance, NCOND is the number of programmed interventions in predictive maintenance);

References
[1] Smidt-Destombes KS, Heijden MC, Harten A. On the availability of a k-out-of-N system given limited spares and repair capacity under a condition based maintenance strategy. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 2004;83(3): 287300. [2] Hontelez JAM, Burger HH, Wijnmalen DJD. Optimum condition-based maintenance policies for deteriorating systems with partial information. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 1996;51(3):26774. [3] Yuo-Tern Tsai, Kuo-Shong Wang, Lin-Chang Tsai. A study of availability-centered preventive maintenance for multi-component systems. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 2004;84(3):26170. [4] Rausand M. Reliability centred maintenance. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 1998; 60(2):12132. [5] Crockera J, Kumarb UD. Age-related maintenance versus reliability centred maintenance: a case study on aero-engines. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 2000;67(2):1138. [6] Martorell S, Villanueva JF, Carlos S, Nebot Y, Sanchez A, Pitarch JL, et al. RAMSCC informed decision-making with application to multiobjective optimization of technical specications and maintenance using genetic algorithms. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 2005;87(1):6575. [7] Goel HD, Grievink J, Herder PM, Weijnen MPC. Integrating reliability optimization into chemical process synthesis. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 2002; 78(3):24758. [8] Cowing MM, Elisabeth Pate-Cornell M, Glynn PW. Dynamic modeling of the tradeoff between productivity and safety in critical engineering systems. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 2004;86(3):26984. [9] Moubray J. Reliability centred maintenance. Oxford: Butter WorthHeinmann Ltd; 1991. [10] Smith AM. Reliability centred maintenance. New York, NY: McGrawHill; 1993. [11] Anderson AT, Neril L. Reliability-centred maintenance management and engineering methods. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1990. [12] Deshpande VS, Modak JP. Application of RCM to a medium scale industry. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 2002;77(1):3143. [13] Deshpande VS, Modak JP. Application of RCM for safety considerations in a steel plant. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 2002;78(3):32534. [14] Deshpande VS, Modak JP. Maintenance strategy for tilting table of rolling mill based on reliability considerations. Reliab Eng Syst Safe, 80(1):118. [15] Carretero J, Perez JM, Garcia-Carballeira F, Calderon A, Fernandez J, Garcia JD, et al. Applying RCM in large scale systems: a case study with railway networks. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 2003;82(3):25773. [16] Vatn J. Maintenance optimisation from a decision theoretical point of view. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 1997;58(2):11926. [17] Dekker R, Scart PA. On the impact of optimisation models in maintenance decision making: the state of the art. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 1998;60(2):1119.

848

M. Bertolini, M. Bevilacqua / Reliability Engineering and System Safety 91 (2006) 839848 [29] Lee JW, Kim SH. Using analytic network process and goal programming for interdependent information system project selection. Comput Oper Res 2000;27:36782. [30] Badri MA. Combining the analytic hierarchy process and goal programming for global facility location-allocation problem. Int J Prod Econ 1999;62:23748. [31] Romero C. Handbook of critical issues in goal programming. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1991. [32] Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1980. [33] Belton V, Stewart TJ. Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002. [34] Belton V, Gear AE. The legitimacy of rank reversal - a comment. Omega 1985;13(3):1434. [35] Vargas LG. An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications. Euro J Oper Res 1990;48(1):28. [36] Saaty TL, Vargas LG. The legitimacy of rank reversal. Omega 1984; 12(5):5136. [37] Saaty TL. An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Manag Sci 1990;36(3):25968. [38] Saaty TL. That is not the analytic hierarchy process: what the AHP is and what it is not. J Multi-Crit Decis Anal 1987;6:32435. [39] Carlos A. Bana e Costa and Jean-Claude Vansnick. A fundamental criticism to Saatys use of the eigenvalue procedure to derive priorities, 2001, Working Paper LSEOR 01.42, London School of Economics (available in http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/operationalResearch/ research/workingPapers.htm).

[18] Waeyenbergh G, Pintelon L. Maintenance concept development: a case study. Int J Prod Econ 2004;89(3):395405. [19] Kelly A. Maintenance organizations & systems: business-centred maintenance. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1997. [20] Almeida AT, Bohoris GA. Decision theory in maintenance decisionmaking. J Qual Maintenance Eng 1995;1(1):3945. [21] Triantaphyllou E, Kovalerchuk B, Mann L, Knapp GM. Determining the most important criteria in maintenance decision making. J Qual Maintenance Eng 1997;3(1):1624. [22] Bevilacqua M, Braglia M. The analytic hierarchy process applied to maintenance strategy selection. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 2000;70(1): 7183. [23] Charnes A, Coopper WW. Management models and industrial applications of linear programming. New York, NY: Wiley; 1961. [24] Kvanli AH. Financial planning using goal programming. Omega 1980;8: 20718. [25] Lin WT. A survey of goal programming applications. Omega 1980;8: 1157. [26] Taylor III BW, Moore LT, Clayton ER. R&D project selection and man power allocation with integer non-linear goal programming. Manag Sci 1982;28:114958. [27] Schaible S, Karuppan CM. Designing a quality control system in a service organization: a goal programming case study. Eur J Oper Res 1995;81: 24958. [28] Badri MA. A combined AHP-GP model for quality control system. Int J Prod Econ 2001;72:2740.